Your arguments are just as flawed in arguing against me as they were arguing against Cam. You go on to state “that old hackneyed chestnut "science doesn't disprove religion." This reveals a deep misunderstanding of science,” blah blah blah. True science does not disprove God. It cannot do so, for God is the ultimate truth. That being understood, God stands outside of creation and time. He does not fall victim to pathetic attempts to relegate him to some sort of atheistically contrived notion of the past; namely that he was merely created by man to be a comfort to them. He cannot be stuffed into a beaker, nor dissected and analyzed at a lab in Berkley. He is outside of creation.
The best and only way to understand God is to understand him through his creations and revelations. The creations of God are the universe and everything in it. By studying this “keyhole” and its shape we should be able to understand something about the “key” (Rahner). In this way can science lead us to a better understanding of God. The revelation of God is ultimately Jesus Christ’s incarnation as the Son of God. Other lesser forms of revelation are the Bible, Tradition, Magisterium, and then eventually personal revelation when it happens. The Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium are all public revelations and can be studied rationally. Jesus is the ultimate revelation and is best studied by following Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis. Personal revelation, if you are fortunate to receive it, is God’s way of building and leading you to more faith. Unless this happens to you personally you are unlikely to ever be able to study it. Given that there are ways in which to know God, it is possible to rationally come to the conclusion that God does exist. Your personal method would most likely dismiss revelation and just stick with creation. In this creation you are unlikely to ever come up with anything that concretely confirms God’s existence. Though you most certainly will never come up with anything that will negate his existence either. Therefore, you, to be a true man of science, would have to study and endeavor into revelation.
There in lies the burden of proof. You mistakenly claim that I have to prove God’s existence. This is a false notion. I do not. For this conversation to work you have to disprove his existence. You came onto a Catholic website to be a troll and lament the loss of the God whom you still unknowingly seek. Therefore to deny the responsibility to actually disprove God’s existence is intellectual laziness and failed rationale. Historically speaking faith in God is older than atheism. As such, the burden of proof lies with you. Go ahead mouth! Have at it. Flounder about in your ineptness trying to discredit God.
Finally you seek to backtrack and push aside the embarrassing little mistake of your ignorance of our faith. By claiming your ignorance of Catholicism is inconsequential you err. Anonamouth, you directly attacked our faith and did so without any proof or real tangible arguments. It shows the readers that you are already mistaken in your previous attacks on the faith. It shows your deficit in logical aptness and screams of your failure to provide an intelligent response to our critique of your attacks on our faith. When you said, “Your other point, which boils down to "you don't know!" is irrelevant” it is an admission that would have been better phrased, as “I don’t know you!” That would have more accurate and truthful. You clearly don’t know us, nor understand us.
Therefore, this is my invitation to you Anonamouth to get to know us. I offer genuine friendship to you if you are willing accept it. I challenge you to step into the realm of revelation. Get to know us. It’s not that hard. At the very least in the end if you don’t agree with us you can then disagree intelligently. Honestly, seeing you in action here is like watching a bear cub trying to play with a kick ball; slow and witless!
Take care, Buddy."
Friday, December 11, 2009
Guest Blogger "Thomist": The Debate Continues
And here is the second half of Thomist's defense of our beliefs against moral relativism: